Alaska’s Nonpoint Source
Water Pollution Control
Strategy February 15, 2007

Alaska’s Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Control Strategy
2
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 4
A.

Purpose of the Strategy 4

B.

Nonpoint Source Pollution in Alaska 4

1.

Organization of the Strategy 4

2.

Funding Sources 5

C.


Gravel Pit Operation 21

4.

On-site sewage disposal systems (OSDS) 22

5.

Fecal Coliform Bacteria 23

6.

Sedimentation 23

7.

Petroleum 23

8.

Alteration of Natural Hydrology 23

9.

Temperature 23

10.

Solid Waste 24


C. Key Partnerships 37

D. Goals for Reduction of Pollution from Forest Practices 38

Table 3. Forest Practices (FP) Action Plan 40
4. Harbors and Marinas 42
A.

Management Measures and Indicators 42

B.

Regulatory Controls 42

C.

Key Partnerships 43

Alaska’s Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Control Strategy
3
D.

Goals for Reduction of Nonpoint Source Pollution from Harbors and Marinas 44

Table 4. Harbors and Marinas Action Plan (HM) 45
5. Hydromodification 47

D.

Goals for Reduction of Nonpoint Source Pollution from Mining 57

Table 6. Mining Action Plan (MI) 58
7. Agriculture 59
A.

Management Measures and Indicators 59

B.

Regulatory Controls 59

C.

Key Partnerships 60

D.

Goals for reduction of Nonpoint Source Pollution from Agriculture 60

Table 7. Agriculture Action Plan (AG) 61
8. Roads Highways and Bridges 62
A.

Management Measures and Indicators 63

B.


protecting Alaska’s natural resources from polluted runoff also known as nonpoint
pollution. It is a collaborative effort of a wide range of entities. It identifies existing
programs, sets a strategy for implementing these programs, establishes goals, objectives
and timelines for completion of tasks, and outlines methods for determining success.

Alaskans depend on clean water. Clean water is critical to our way of life and our health,
whether it is used for subsistence, recreational, commercial, domestic or industrial
activities. Alaska’s generally pristine waters are a distinguishing characteristic that helps
make Alaska unique among the states. Maintaining good water quality can only be
achieved when all sources of pollution in a watershed are taken into consideration and
resources are focused on the highest priorities and people work together to prevent
pollution and achieve clean water goals. Nonpoint source water pollution is water
pollution which does not come from an end of pipe discharge. It is the leading cause of
water pollution in Alaska.
B. Nonpoint Source Pollution in Alaska
Alaska is a relatively undeveloped state, with most of our watersheds currently in pristine
condition. However, extensive development is occurring in some areas, particularly in
the five major urban hubs; and increasing resource extraction is occurring in some areas.
In populated areas, many waterbodies, including important fish streams, have been
degraded and are in need of restoration. The emphasis of our nonpoint source pollution
strategy is a combination of improving the capacity of local governments to manage
nonpoint source pollution combined with the following state prevention, restoration, and
stewardship efforts. Watershed management plans will be developed and implemented
in high priority watersheds where water quality is either impaired or threatened.
Restoration strategies for polluted waters will target the sources of pollution and include
measures to control that pollution to prevent future degradation. Restoration activities
will be designed to achieve a water quality classification appropriate to the specific
waterbody.

1. Organization of the Strategy

The Appendices to the Strategy provide background and reference material on a number
of subjects including the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), Water
Quality Education Strategy, Information Management Systems, Sources of Funding
Assistance, Agencies and Organizations, the Alaska Clean Water Action (ACWA)
process, Boat Operation Local Ordinances, and Local Ordinances on Roads, Highways
and Bridges.

2. Funding Sources
Communities and local organizations know the problems in their area, but they are often
unable to implement such projects because of a lack of knowledge about how to fix
problems, and how to provide financial support. With limited funds available and limited
discretionary spending, federal, state, and local government programs are rarely able to
provide a single primary source of funding. Combined together, these funding sources
can result in environmental progress. Appendix E includes a list of possible funding
sources.

Federal Funding Sources
The EPA, Office of Water has developed the Catalog of Federal Funding Sources for
Watershed Protection to inform watershed partners of federal monies that might be
available to fund a variety of watershed protection projects. This web site searchable
database EPA's Catalog of Federal Funding Sources for Watershed Protection of financial
assistance sources and can be found at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/fedfund/
Alaska’s Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Control Strategy
6

portions of projects.
•
Providing refinancing of eligible projects.
•
Assigning a project engineer to assist with plans, designs, construction and
regulations.
•
Assuring timely reimbursement for construction expenditures.
•
Ensuring appropriate and effective use of loan funds.
ACWA Grant Funds
In Alaska, multiple federal grant funds are administered through the ACWA initiative.
These grant funds are the CWA Section 319 grant funds, the DNR Office of Project
Management and Permitting (DNR/OPMP) Alaska Coastal Management Program’s
Section 309 Enhancement Grants Program and Section 6217 Coastal Nonpoint Source
Pollution Program, and DFG’s Sustainable Salmon grant funds. This is one of DEC’s
Alaska’s Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Control Strategy
7
primary mechanisms for identification and abatement of nonpoint source water pollution.
For Fiscal Year (FY) 2006, ACWA grant priorities focused on providing monies to abate
and prevent nonpoint source water pollution from stormwater runoff, on-site disposal
systems (OSDS), off-road traffic and forestry operations.
C. Federal Regulatory Requirements
The Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA) Section 6217 requires
that state coastal nonpoint programs be closely coordinated with state and local water
quality planning and programs under several sections of the CWA including 319.
Revised Alaska Coastal Clean Water Plan management measures are fully integrated

Management Agreements, the Forest Resources and Practices Act and regulations, and
erosion and sediment control plans for dam construction. For a complete listing of
authorities and programs to implement the Section 6217 management measures, please
Alaska’s Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Control Strategy
8
refer to the Alaska Coastal Clean Water Plan and the agency and organization list in
Appendix D.
2. Alaska’s Implementation of Strategy Elements
Alaska intends to continue to employ a mix of regulatory and non-regulatory tools to
ensure implementation of nonpoint source goals, action plans, objectives and tasks.
D. Statewide Incorporation of EPA’s Nine Key Elements
1. The State program contains explicit short and long-term goals, objectives, and
strategies to protect surface and ground water.

Alaska’s Strategy to curb nonpoint source pollution is implemented through short and
long term goals, objectives and tasks for each of seven pollution sources. A completion
target date is included for each task.

2. The State strengthens its working partnerships and linkages with appropriate
State, Tribal, regional, and local entities (including conservation districts),
private sector groups, citizens groups, and Federal agencies.

Improving the coordination and collaboration of water quality initiatives between
agencies and organizations is an important part of the Strategy. Reaching consensus on
the priority waters that require prevention and restoration will assure limited resources
will be used most effectively. The DEC leads coordination efforts to provide consistency
in meeting the goals of the Strategy, but it is ultimately the responsibility of everyone to


3. The State uses a balanced approach that emphasizes both State-wide nonpoint
source programs and on-the-ground management of individual watersheds
where waters are impaired and threatened.

The Statewide approach to management of watersheds has two essential components,
combining and balancing: on the ground management through the ACWA Watershed
Protection Approach and implementation of the Water Quality Monitoring and
Assessment Strategy (June 2005) to assure our waters are clean, healthy and available for
various uses.

ACWA Watershed Protection Approach
Three departments of the state are involved in assuring Alaska’s waters are clean, healthy
and available for various uses. The ACWA program brings the State resource agencies,
DEC, DFG, and DNR, together to deal with waters in a coordinated, cooperative, and
balanced approach assuring state resources are used on the highest priorities. The
Department of Fish and Game is concerned about water as fish and wildlife habitat; the
Department of Environmental Conservation is responsible for ensuring that state water
quality standards are met, to ensure many water uses; and the Department of Natural
Resources is in charge of water quantity and administers water rights and withdrawals.
ACWA brings these agencies together to assess all aspects of a waterbody, and make
joint decisions on assessment and restoration.

ACWA agencies implement a consolidated approach for a complete assessment of the
health and status of any particular waterbody. The ACWA process has three major
components: 1) Stewardship, 2) Protection and restoration of waters at risk, and 3)
Recovery of polluted waters. This process identifies the highest priority water quality
and quantity needs to prevent degradation of healthy waters and restore waters that are
polluted. This process identifies where citizen, organization and agency efforts should be
focused, how best to take action, which agency is responsible for the action, and why

present and future activities.

Abatement of water quality impairments from nonpoint source pollution in Alaska is
accomplished through a combination of Waterbody Recovery Plans and adopted Total
Maximum Daily Load documents. Significant threats are prevented from known
discharges like dredge and fill activities, stormwater, wastewater discharge facilities and
Log Transfer Facilities (LTF) through state authorizations.

Abatement of Known Impairments
Waterbody Recovery Plan – Total Maximum Daily Load
One of the first steps toward the abatement of nonpoint source pollution in an impaired
waterbody is the development of the TMDL or Waterbody Recovery Plan. When
waterbodies are determined to be impaired (when they exceed state Water Quality
Standards for a particular pollutant), they are added to the 303(d) (referring to section
303(d) of the CWA) list of impaired waterbodies which is submitted to the EPA every
two years. It is incumbent upon the State and EPA to take the lead in working to restore
waterbodies to an unpolluted state. Restoration is accomplished through the development
and implementation of either a TMDL document or a Waterbody Recovery Plan. While
following different formats, both identify the source of and the means to reduce
pollutants and the amount of pollutants that can be introduced to the waterbody while still
allowing overall recovery to proceed. With this knowledge, parties who introduce
pollutants are given an “allowance,” or “total maximum daily load” for that pollutant,
and/or prescriptive actions called Best Management Practices (BMPs) that they must
follow, to stay within that allowance. Under a Waterbody Recovery Plan, an allowance
is not necessarily given but often a range of BMPs are identified to reduce or control the
nonpoint source pollution that is impairing the waterbody.
A TMDL or other controls such as a Waterbody Recovery Plan or NPDES permits are
required for a polluted waterbody to be removed from the 303(d) list however; a
Alaska’s Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Control Strategy


stormwater permit activities addressing various industrial sectors and activities common
to their business processes and practices to prevent polluted runoff.

Wastewater
dischargers required to have a permit fall into two general categories: domestic
(municipal and private waste treatment plants) and industrial (including mining, oil &
gas, seafood processing/hatcheries, utilities and transportation). Dredge and fill projects
are required to obtain a DEC 401 Certification which provides "reasonable assurance"
that a project will meet state water quality standards, and may require Best Management
Practices to be followed concerning fill materials, erosion control, drainage control, and
habitat protection.

5. The State program identifies waters and their watersheds impaired by nonpoint
source pollution and identifies important unimpaired waters that are threatened
or otherwise at risk. Further, the State establishes a process to progressively
address these identified waters by conducting more detailed watershed
assessments and developing watershed implementation plans, and then by
implementing the plans.

Alaska’s Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Control Strategy
12
Polluted or “impaired” waterbodies are identified in the biennial “Integrated Report”
submitted by DEC to the EPA. The target for restoration of these waterbodies is at least
10 active restoration projects per year.

Alaska’s Final 2006 Integrated report is available at:
http://www.dec.state.ak.us/water/wqsar/waterbody/2004_ir_final.pdf

7. The State identifies Federal lands and activities which are not managed
consistently with State nonpoint source program objectives. Where appropriate,
the State seeks EPA assistance to help resolve issues.

Sections 319(b)(2)(F) and 319 (k) of the CWA Amendments enable states to review
federal activities and development projects for consistency with standards in the state’s
approved Alaska’s Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Control Strategy. This provision is
a powerful tool allowing states to be involved in controlling the effects of federal
activities on water quality. DEC focuses efforts to review federal activities for
Alaska’s Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Control Strategy
13
consistency with the Alaska’s Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Control Strategy through
the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) direct federal action reviews, thus
affecting the coastal zone. Federal agencies in Alaska with activities that can generate
nonpoint source pollution include the Department of Defense, Bureau of Land
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Department of
Energy, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). Currently many
of these agencies are in the process of updating their land management plans last
developed in the 1980's. To assure consistent, efficient and adequate nonpoint source
measures are included in these plans, DEC develops and submits standard language
addressing common stewardship practices to protect and restore waters for consideration
and incorporation into federal and state land management plans.

The Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA) of 1990 amended the
Coastal Zone Management Act to clarify that federal consistency applies when any
federal activity, regardless of location, affects any land or water use or natural resource of
the coastal zone. This federal consistency requirement is important since it addresses the


14
• Managing the ACWA Grant Program that addresses priority stewardship,
protection and restoration needs on waters throughout Alaska;
• Providing technical assistance to municipalities, local groups, and other state
agencies involved in water quality projects;
• Responding to public concerns and complaints on nonpoint source pollution in
streams and lakes.
• Managing state and federal nonpoint source funds.

9. The State periodically reviews and evaluates its nonpoint source management
program using environmental and functional measures of success, and revises its
nonpoint source assessment and its management program at least every five
years.

Alaska endorses periodic review and evaluation of the Alaska’s Nonpoint Source Water
Pollution Control Strategy. Every five years the state reviews and upgrades the Strategy.
This includes a complete reexamination of the Management Measures and Indicators and
Action Plan Objectives & Tasks for each pollution source category that establishes the
basis of the state’s actions for periods ranging between 5 – 15 years.

Each Action Plan table represents a mix of regulatory, non regulatory, financial and
technical tasks that support a specific objective. Management Measures and Indicators
are used to assess the state's success in achieving the goals for reduction of each pollution
source. They are based on either the states water quality or technology programs designed
to achieve and maintain beneficial uses of water.
Alaska’s Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Control Strategy

NGOs, Fed
Agencies, public
On-going ALL MANAGEMENT
MEASURES
Additional Measures
Critical Coastal Areas
Admin. Coordination
Public Participation
Technical Assistance
NPS-A2 Implement an Alaska Strategy for Water Pollution Education to cover
statewide issues.
DEC,DFG,
UAF/CES, NGOs
On-going ALL MANAGEMENT
MEASURES
NPS-B. Assess water quality on a statewide basis and in targeted watersheds to support watershed planning and restoration
projects to protect water quality and associated uses, including habitat.
NPS-B1. Develop and maintain a statewide water quality assessment program
with tracking and website access to determine polluted waters, sources of
pollution, and restoration projects and priorities.
DEC/NPS On-going Chap.12 MONITORING,
Chap 1 Additional
Management Measures
Critical Coastal Areas
NPS-B2. For each water identified through the ACWA nomination process,
within one year of the nomination collect and review available information to
determine if existing stewardship is sufficient or if there are needs for data
collection, protection or restoration activities. If further needs exist, use the
ACWA ranking process to prioritize the water.
DEC Ongoing Chap 1 Additional

NPS-B4. For all ACWA medium priority waters, within three years after initial
prioritization and within each three-year period thereafter, evaluate the nonpoint
source water quality concerns and develop or modify appropriate actions that
should be taken within the next three years to help address those concerns,
including data gaps that improve the quality of the ranking determination.
DEC Ongoing Chap 11 Additional
Management Measures
NPS-B5. For all ACWA low priority and stewardship waters, within five years
after initial prioritization and within each five year period thereafter, evaluate any
nonpoint source water quality concerns to determine if existing stewardship
activities are sufficient. If they are not sufficient, then process the waters through
the ACWA ranking process and identify appropriate actions that are needed,
including data gaps that improve the quality of the ranking determination.
DEC Ongoing Chap 11 Additional
Management Measures
Chapter 12 Monitoring
NPS-B6. Provide adequate field presence and follow up on complaint response,
inspections, and enforcement where necessary to correct water quality violations
that are reported.
DEC On-going Chap.12 : MONITORING
NPS-C. Complete assessment of fish habitat and passage at culverts on
roads and systems, and prioritize sites for protection and restoration.
DFG,
DNR/OHMP
2010 Chap. 4: URBAN,
VII A, VII B, VII E
NPS-C1. Adopt nutrient criteria for selected categories of high priority water
bodies.
DEC/WQS 2010 Chap 11 Critical Coastal
Areas

for
Completion
of Action
Corresponding Link to
CZMA Section 6217
Guidance for Management
Measures (Chapters cited
where appropriate)
NPS-D1. Use the ACWA database to track and plan actions on all nominated
ACWA waters, particularly those needing restoration or that are at risk.
DEC/NPS Ongoing Chap.12. Monitoring
NPS-D2. Implement a statewide water quality monitoring strategy to assure that
waters reach or maintain their beneficial uses. Provide consistent, long term
training for entities monitoring water quality, such as agencies, local
governments, businesses, and volunteers.
DEC/NPS Ongoing Chap. 12 Monitoring
Admin. Coordination
NPS-D3. Review and incorporate monitoring data provided by the regulated
industry into an accessible water quality database.
DEC Ongoing Chap. 12. Monitoring
NPS- D4. As part of monitoring strategy, develop and implement approach for
measuring flows on ACWA priority streams and rivers that may be impaired from
nonpoint source pollution.
DEC, DNR, DFG,
USGS
2008 Chap 11 Additional
Management Measures
Chapter 12 Monitoring
NPS–D5.Where appropriate and necessary on ACWA medium or high priority
waters, preserve, enhance or establish buffers to ensure water quality meets

Action Plan Objectives & Tasks
Responsible
Agencies &
Organizations
Timeframe
for
Completion
of Action
Corresponding Link to
CZMA Section 6217
Guidance for Management
Measures (Chapters cited
where appropriate)
interested parties for use in reviewing permit applications & other development
activities near waterbodies. Use this information as baseline or reference data for
fish habitat monitoring studies.

DNR/OHMP NPS–D11. Monitor global nonpoint source pollution reaching Alaska

DEC Ongoing
NPS-E. Strengthen partnerships with government and nongovernmental agencies and organizations to improve coordination and
efficiency and reduce duplication of effort.
NPS-E1. Enhance interagency coordination by including resource agencies,
education and research institutions, non-government organizations, and public in
setting priorities and allocating funding.
DEC Ongoing ALL MANAGEMENT
MEASURES
19
DNR/OHMP - Department of Natural Resources/Office of Habitat Management and Permitting
EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
NGO - nongovernmental organizations
UAA/ENRI - University of Alaska Environment and Natural Resources Institute
UA - University of Alaska
UAF/CES - University of Alaska Cooperative Extension Service
USGS - U.S. Geological Survey

Alaska’s Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Control Strategy
20
2.
Urban & Community Development
Alaska’s Population Distribution: The 2004 population estimate for Alaska is 663,661
people (ADLWD, 2005). Major population centers in Alaska are the municipality of
Anchorage (pop. 260,283) and surrounding Matanuska-Susitna Borough (pop. 72,278);
Fairbanks North Star Borough (pop. 82,840); and City and Borough of Juneau (pop.
30,711) (ADLWD, 2005). The Matanuska-Susitna Borough has been the fastest growing
area in Alaska since 1990, growing at an average rate of about 4%. Other areas of Alaska
experiencing population growth include the Municipality of Anchorage and the Kenai
Peninsula Borough. In Alaska, the military account for about 5.3% of the total
workforce, providing nearly as many jobs as the top ten private sector employers
combined.

Native Alaskans: There are 227 federally recognized tribes in Alaska (EPA, 2000). The
21
inorganic chemicals). Fecal coliform, sedimentation, and petroleum are the most common
forms of pollution in Alaska's urban areas.

2. Snow Disposal
Alaska municipalities face challenges disposing of more than 100 inches of snow that
falls on many maritime cities. Many of Alaska's larger cities have been developed on
narrow strips of land between coastal mountain ranges and marine waters. As these land
limited cities continue to grow, vacant land that was once used to store snow has been
developed into residential and commercial properties. As a result, many Alaskan cities
are currently disposing of snow into the marine environment or have contacted DEC
about snow disposal options. In order to help DEC respond to inquiries about snow
disposal requirements and to assist communities, municipalities and businesses select,
prepare and maintain appropriate snow disposal sites the department is developing a
Snow Disposal Guidance (2007) policy and procedure.
Snow collected from city streets can contain salt, sand, gravel, suspended solids,
dissolved solids, oil, grease, antifreeze, heavy metals, chemicals from tire and engine
wear, miscellaneous trash, debris, animal waste and other trace elements from vehicle
traffic and automobile engine emissions. Some pollutants become diluted as the snow
melts. Other pollutants can accumulate in the area where the snow is dumped or
downstream where melt-water accumulates. In addition, the solid materials such as sand
and other soil particles, which accumulate in roadway removed snow, act as contaminants
by filling in streams, lakes and navigation channels.

A report completed in 2006 titled “Alaska Evaluation of Snow Disposal into Near Shore
Marine Environments” presents the results of the evaluation of snow disposal into near
shore environments in Anchorage and Juneau. The study examined the results of testing
fresh fallen snow collected from roads in Juneau and Anchorage that exhibited a visual

to minimize water pollution. The environmental benefits of implementing effective
gravel pit BMPs are:
• Reduction of toxic materials that are introduced into the environment by their
attachment and transport by sediment particles;
• Less impact on growth and propagation of fish and aquatic life from decreased
sediment;
• Protection of receiving waters with designated uses such as recreation and wildlife
habitat.

In June 2006, DEC published the “User’s Manual Best Management Practices for Gravel
Pits and The Protection of Surface Water Quality of Alaska”.

This manual outlines best
management practices (BMPs) for gravel pit operations where stormwater runoff may
impact water quality in lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands. The manual is available at
the following web address:
http://www.dec.state.ak.us/water/wnpspc/pdfs/gravelpitbmp_guidance_final_063006.pdf

4. On-site sewage disposal systems (OSDS)
OSDS are common in Alaska’s urban and rural communities and are considered by EPA
and a growing number of professionals to be a low-cost, long-term wastewater treatment
option. However, improperly installed, improperly operated and maintained, or aging
OSDS fail to properly treat domestic wastewater and are a primary source of fecal
coliform bacteria, biological oxygen demand (BOD), and nutrients such as ammonia-
nitrogen. These poorly functioning onsite septic systems can contribute to the
contamination of surface water, groundwater, and drinking water and can result in the
spread of viral and bacterial illnesses. This may cause costly public health problems and
environmental contamination and degradation.

In addition to being properly designed and installed, onsite systems must be operated and


8. Alteration of Natural Hydrology
Development often alters streams and other waterbodies. Changes to runoff, diversions,
channelization, and destruction of natural drainage systems can result in riparian and tidal
wetland degradation or destruction. Appropriate land use planning, permitting,
development practices, and enforcement of local ordinances are necessary to protect
sensitive ecological areas, minimize land disturbances and retain natural drainage and
vegetation whenever possible.

9. Temperature
Exceedances of temperature standards have been observed in several Alaskan streams
through recent monitoring efforts conducted by USGS and from DEC grant funded
projects. Few measurements of temperature were recorded previously. It is not known if
temperature exceedances are due solely to natural conditions or to human activities.
Potential causes may include climatic changes and the removal of forest cover in urban
settings and logged areas that result in temperature increases in groundwater and surface
runoff. Other potential causes may be the loss of riparian cover due to urban
development and flooding from natural events possibly accentuated by human activities.

Alaska’s Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Control Strategy
24
10. Solid Waste
Permitted municipal solid waste (MSW) disposal facilities are reviewed by the DEC,
Solid Waste Program to ensure they are located and designed to safely accommodate
MSW and to control pollution from migrating off-site. In contrast, un-permitted MSW
disposal facilities have not been formally evaluated by the Solid Waste program and may
lack required controls. As such, the level of risk that un-permitted disposal facilities have

allows the formation of potentially hazardous materials and renders ash that is more
attractive to animals and more likely to cause surface and groundwater pollution at
landfills.”

Open burning is an accepted form of waste management for Class III facilities. Common
materials that pose a threat to the environment when burned are: foam, rubber, plastic,
household hazardous waste, which release dioxins and other deleterious compounds
when improperly burned. Such surface or groundwater pollution is particularly a concern
in areas of high precipitation due to leachate formation. Leachate is a solution of
Alaska’s Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Control Strategy
25
dissolved and suspended particles of waste matter that form when water comes into
contact with waste.

For more information on open burning the DEC, Division of Environmental Health, Solid
Waste Program prepared a publication for small communities considering incineration
and energy recovery titled “Burning Garbage and Land Disposal in Rural Alaska”(May
2004) at the following web address:
http://www.dec.state.ak.us/eh/docs/sw/Burning%20Garbage%20Factsheet.pdf

B. Management Measures and Indicators
The following Management Measures and Indicators will be used to assess the State's
success in achieving its Urban and Community Development goals and objectives.

• Number of assessed rivers, streams and reservoirs designated for drinking water
use that fully support use as a drinking water supply (based on 305(b) report and
303(d) list).